E‐Book Platforms and Aggregators: An Evaluation of Available Options for Publishers

Citation

Hannabuss, S. (2008), "E‐Book Platforms and Aggregators: An Evaluation of Available Options for Publishers", Library Review, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 76-78. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530810845107

Electronic books and platforms, content aggregation, and all the associated hosting and trading relationships connected with them, are of topical interest to both librarians and publishers. For this reason, publications like this one have particular value as surveys of the field: they give readers a chance to reflect on the choices they have made and perhaps realise they should have made, and offer information about what is on offer.

Understandably, when reports like this appear, we ask “what angle?”, “what stance?”. The ALPSP is an international trade association of non‐profit publishers formed in 1972. It monitors national and international publishing and information, training and development issues, and has an active research and publications programme. Members include Blackwell Publishing and the Haworth Press, the Institute of Physics and the Nutrition Society, Swets and Wolters Kluwer Health. Recent research publications include works on journal cancellation, peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals, scholarly communication, and online submission systems. A full list of these can be found, along with much other information, on their website at www.alpsp.org.

Linda Bennett (of Gold Leaf) set out to evaluate existing and developing e‐book platforms for “publishers who do not yet make their book publications available in e‐book format and wish to understand what is on offer”. She carried this out by conducting interviews and questionnaires with what she admits was rather a small sample (of five librarians and three academics based in the UK, USA, Australia, and mainland Europe), and added these empirical findings (given in good faith, she says) to previously published research in the field. Of this earlier research, it is worth picking out her Promoting the Uptake of E‐Books in Higher and Further Education, published by JISC in 2004 (go to www.jisc.ac.uk).

Readers will be interested to know what she asked: state of play with e‐books, specific platform information, scores on functionality/technical issues and pricing structure and relationship with the aggregator. Further questions probed into cataloguing, tagging and access. The report breaks down into several distinct parts. First a set of views from librarians, academics, and publishers. The librarians were interested in pricing and access and usability; they wanted good content, reliable interfaces, and affordable licences or subscriptions. Much of their current spending went on key (often reference) titles from established providers. Main pluses were instant access and multiple use, searching across platforms and remote access, and main minuses were navigation, vulnerability, and range. The academics were interested in all these factors too, though had only a vague idea how much was spent on e‐books. The perception was that e‐books should be more available, that disciplines varied, and that they encouraged plagiarism. Few named actual platforms.

It is no surprise that the views of publishers were of greatest interest to the research project and the ALPSP itself, even though Bennett admits it was only “a straw poll”. All respondents represented publishers active in e‐books, with front‐ and back‐list offerings. All were familiar with several e‐book platforms, citing by name players like Blackwell and NetLibrary (the latter is market leader in general e‐books aggregation at present). A range of (anonymous) impressions indicates concerns about clunky functionality, reliable payment, and the option of building one's own platform. In fact a later section of the report discusses that very point – building your own – and discusses two companies (Atypon and Digital Publishing Solutions Limited) that offer services. The preferred functionality attributes for publishers included cross‐search facility across the collection and within the book, an ability to chunk or dice for material to use in virtual‐learning environments and for course‐packs for distance‐learning, and secure access. Readers will recognize these as concerns they have themselves.

The companies discussed fall into several categories in the report, and most of the space is devoted to them, one by one. Then at the end there are three short case‐studies (about Taylor & Francis, Cambridge University Press, and Wiley). The categories of platform are general aggregators (like NetLibrary and ebrary), specialist aggregators (like EBSCO/MetaPress and Gale, Ingenta and ProQuest), digital warehouses (like OverDrive/Content Reserve and Lightning Source), and library suppliers (like Blackwell Booksellers, Coutts MyiLibrary, and Dawson Books). Information on these is structured in a common way: typically, NetLibrary goes through technical and back‐end, digitization/ conversion and content, services and customers, pricing and payment relationships with publishers, and plus/minus tallies. A plus for NetLibrary is its worldwide brand‐name, clear sale model and easy‐to‐use interface, while minuses are inflexibility and maintenance charges. Views on each provider derive variously from librarians, academics, and publishers, though publishers dominate.

A review chart at the end (p. 87) summarizes aggregator functionality (currently available) across the piece – NetLibrary and ebrary, EBL and Knovel, EBSCO and Ingenta, OverDrive and MyiLibrary. Most offer cross‐search facility and search via Google and OPAC, printing and multimedia, downloads of whole book and multiple‐borrowing and customization. Some are in development, others by agreement, and some for journals only. The information is on the whole helpful, even though there are times when personal preferences, and some little marketing speak, take over (e.g. about promising 99.9 per cent uptime). The report rightly points out, too, that Knovel has 65 per cent corporate sales and is best for science and engineering, that Safari picks up on changing editions of business texts, that EBSCO has a large client base and is good with third‐party material, and Ingenta has worked hard on metadata and encryption. The report rightly states that library suppliers were false‐footed early on with e‐books and are now catching up.

It is a moving target, and such reports admittedly have a relatively short shelf‐life. It may be that the intelligent reader will go from the titles here (or know them already) and examine the services for him/herself by going to provider websites and investigating products. Most readers – librarian and publisher – will be familiar with at least some of these providers, and even feel they are locked in well or less well with them. There remains scepticism about e‐books and how well they cover particular fields, how secure they are and how much they represent value‐for‐money. These are questions Bennett leaves very much to the reader, a reader who, arguably after reading this report, is a lot more informed than before. Almost as a side‐show are the academics who – from this report – are nowhere when it comes to awareness (and that really is another story).